Jump to content

Locomotion & Rails of Sheffield announce SE&CR D Class


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Reading through the last few pages of threads, it strikes me that there is an almost puritanical desperation in some folks to be disappointed in the efforts of retailers and manufacturers that produce ever more superb models.

 

It reminds me of an episode of Frasier where Daphne asks Niles and Frasier how they liked a concert, to be told the performance was magnificent but with one tiny flaw that they will pick apart for the rest of the evening.  “Oh good”, she says, “just the way you like it”.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

  • Like 3
  • Agree 12
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

A short running session featuring the eagerly anticipated Locomotion / Rails of Sheffield South East & Chatham Railway Wainwright D Class 4-4-0 edited with real sound. 
Sounds are provided by a number of similar locomotives from my sound collection, captured at various Gala and Preserved Railways over the past few years.
Here we see preserved SE&CR D Class 4-4-0, No.737 hauling a short local passenger train, consisting of matching SE&CR Birdcage stock.
Hope you enjoy!

 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Darius43 said:

Reading through the last few pages of threads, it strikes me that there is an almost puritanical desperation in some folks to be disappointed in the efforts of retailers and manufacturers that produce ever more superb models.

 

It reminds me of an episode of Frasier where Daphne asks Niles and Frasier how they liked a concert, to be told the performance was magnificent but with one tiny flaw that they will pick apart for the rest of the evening.  “Oh good”, she says, “just the way you like it”.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

Oh I dunno. Would be nice on a nearly £200 loco if the numbers were straight. As you say, we keep getting ever more superb models so it would be nice if they got the simple things right. 

Seems more and more thought that people want ever better/upgraded models and are also happy for them to carry mistakes.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, Darius43 said:

Reading through the last few pages of threads, it strikes me that there is an almost puritanical desperation in some folks to be disappointed in the efforts of retailers and manufacturers that produce ever more superb models.

 

It reminds me of an episode of Frasier where Daphne asks Niles and Frasier how they liked a concert, to be told the performance was magnificent but with one tiny flaw that they will pick apart for the rest of the evening.  “Oh good”, she says, “just the way you like it”.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

That's a bit unfair. No-one wants to find problems but if we do find them we can't just keep quiet and ignore them. That would be very unhealthy for everyone, for the whole hobby!

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Not everyone will worry about the misaligned running plates (and steps and hand rails) between loco and tender but it niggles me so I've looked into it some more. (Why does it niggle me? The loco was designed to have the running plates aligned. Look at any drawing of the class, including the one on the box...)

 

I measure the misalignment as ~1.25mm, that is 3 and 3/4 inches in the real world. That may not sound much but it’s about half the depth of the valences - the top of one valence is pointing at the middle of the other.

 

I dismantled the tender to investigate the problem further and this was enlightening. The whole tender body, including running plate, valence and steps is one unit and the valences overhang the chassis. So if you can insert some spacers between the tender body and chassis you can get all of those important visual elements to line up with the loco, and crucially, do that without affecting the couplings and without opening up any obvious visible gaps!

 

Here's a quick bodge up with some 1.2mm rod inserted temporarily to create the spacing and the tender body just resting on top, not properly fixed:

IMG_20210616_231232r.jpg.3b4eda9b29acebb2ec97fed48b7b9b91.jpg

Much better to my eye!

 

Some things to note about this:

1. The supplied fixing screws will have a very tenuous hold on their collars so they will have to be very carefully tightened. Probably worth sourcing some longer screws.

2. More of the tender chassis will be visible, obviously. Whether this is more or less "correct" than the model as supplied is hard to say. The bottom of the steps now seem to line up with the bottom of the frames - which is what the drawing shows on the box...

3. The fall plate(s) may have to be adjusted but the one attached to the tender is metal so it should bend to a new position.

4. There's 1mm more space for a bigger speaker! :wink_mini:

 

I need to play around a bit more and then maybe make more permanent spacers, but it looks promising.

 

Great Fix. well done!

 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, bill_schmidt1 said:

 Would be nice on a nearly £200 loco if the numbers were straight. As you say, we keep getting ever more superb models so it would be nice if they got the simple things right. 

Seems more and more thought that people want ever better/upgraded models and are also happy for them to carry mistakes.

Yes, it would be nice if the numbers were straight, and they should be - but aren't. So we have options.

 

Pass up the model because it doesn't quite come up to expectations. As I always say on these occasions - we may wait a long time for a better one.

 

Learn not to pre-order (I haven't and almost never do) in which case some models may be dropped for apparent lack of interest.

 

Get all brave and try to rectify the error. Plenty of people manage that sort of thing, I see in RMweb.

 

Live with it, because like people you know and quite like, it is imperfect but close enough. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

Yes, it would be nice if the numbers were straight, and they should be - but aren't. So we have options.

 

Pass up the model because it doesn't quite come up to expectations. As I always say on these occasions - we may wait a long time for a better one.

 

Learn not to pre-order (I haven't and almost never do) in which case some models may be dropped for apparent lack of interest.

 

Get all brave and try to rectify the error. Plenty of people manage that sort of thing, I see in RMweb.

 

Live with it, because like people you know and quite like, it is imperfect but close enough. 

You missed out the  'Build the Finecast kit instead' option.....

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Yes, it would be nice if the numbers were straight, and they should be - but aren't. So we have options.

 

Pass up the model because it doesn't quite come up to expectations. As I always say on these occasions - we may wait a long time for a better one.

 

Learn not to pre-order (I haven't and almost never do) in which case some models may be dropped for apparent lack of interest.

 

Get all brave and try to rectify the error. Plenty of people manage that sort of thing, I see in RMweb.

 

Live with it, because like people you know and quite like, it is imperfect but close enough. 

 

Or like the 2nd run of the GT3 the next Batch produced might have these little things addressed and potential buyers would be happy out!

 

I'd still love one but it comes to a point where now I have just way too much than I will ever in Reality probably use.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Yes, it would be nice if the numbers were straight, and they should be - but aren't. So we have options.

 

Pass up the model because it doesn't quite come up to expectations. As I always say on these occasions - we may wait a long time for a better one.

 

Learn not to pre-order (I haven't and almost never do) in which case some models may be dropped for apparent lack of interest.

 

Get all brave and try to rectify the error. Plenty of people manage that sort of thing, I see in RMweb.

 

Live with it, because like people you know and quite like, it is imperfect but close enough. 

Or point out the errors in the hope that the manufacturer might do better next time - whether that be a re-run of the model in question or his next product, whatever that might be !

 

 

 

 

 

....... or build the finecast kit.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Yes, it would be nice if the numbers were straight, and they should be - but aren't. So we have options.

 

Pass up the model because it doesn't quite come up to expectations. As I always say on these occasions - we may wait a long time for a better one.

 

Learn not to pre-order (I haven't and almost never do) in which case some models may be dropped for apparent lack of interest.

 

Get all brave and try to rectify the error. Plenty of people manage that sort of thing, I see in RMweb.

 

Live with it, because like people you know and quite like, it is imperfect but close enough. 


Thats the problem though. This forum is full of manufacturers threads with people clamouring for the latest products. They then seem happy to let errors go but then start up the next round of "we need a new tooled/ upgraded X Y or Z" when it could of just been right the first time. 
In this case its a silly error that should be right and as you point out people could fix it but why should they?
If this was a Hornby model we'd be at 100+ pages of people saying it should of been right and Hornby should know better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

It's the other side on 488 that's more noticible, not noticed whether it's winky or not on my 737. 


well it could be but I’m really not sure if it’s not the font as the 4 is smaller than the 8 because of the curves. 
5CB39F9B-55CC-44A5-BAAE-62C1AA12E43B.jpeg.1520656817e99e8dfcb42b1bef7ffe1b.jpeg

 

6CC9D3EB-519C-49AB-9A8E-C730384EEBDA.jpeg.f4c39acad644227f95c476d0297bd6dc.jpeg

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

594581404_Wonky488.png.9c0a12ade3707a22988a60e2007660c3.png

 

I would find it hard to believe that the numbers were always dead straight on the prototype.

 

Or was Ashford that much better than Doncaster and Horwich?

 

Les

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/06/2021 at 18:49, Harlequin said:

Not everyone will worry about the misaligned running plates (and steps and hand rails) between loco and tender but it niggles me so I've looked into it some more. (Why does it niggle me? The loco was designed to have the running plates aligned. Look at any drawing of the class, including the one on the box...)

 

I measure the misalignment as ~1.25mm, that is 3¾ inches in the real world. That may not sound much but it’s about half the depth of the valences - the top of one valence is pointing at the middle of the other.

 

I dismantled the tender to investigate the problem further and this was enlightening. The whole tender body, including running plate, valence and steps is one unit and the valences overhang the chassis (unlike the typical Hornby tender). So if you can insert some spacers between the tender body and chassis you can get all of those important visual elements to line up with the loco, and crucially, do that without affecting the couplings and without opening up any obvious visible gaps!

 

Here's a quick bodge up with some 1.2mm rod inserted temporarily to create the spacing and the tender body just resting on top, not properly fixed:

IMG_20210616_231232r.jpg.3b4eda9b29acebb2ec97fed48b7b9b91.jpg

Much better to my eye!

 

Some things to note about this:

1. The supplied fixing screws will have a very tenuous hold on their collars so they will have to be very carefully tightened. Probably worth sourcing some longer screws.

2. More of the tender chassis will be visible, obviously. Whether this is more or less "prototypically correct" than the model as supplied is hard to say. The bottom of the steps now seem to line up with the bottom of the frames - which is what the drawing shows on the box...

3. The fall plate(s) may have to be adjusted but the one attached to the tender is metal so it should bend to a new position.

4. There's 1mm more space for a bigger speaker! :wink_mini:

 

I need to play around a bit more and then maybe make more permanent spacers, but it looks promising.

 

 

That looks a lot better and closer to the prototype photo above. Is there a large open space in the tender as in the GWR Mogul for placing a speaker? I used a Zimo Dumbo in mine and it sounds great and hope to do the same with the Wainwright. If I knew there would be room I would go ahead and order the speaker right now—it will be 2-3 weeks before the big green box appears in my mailbox over here.

Edited by Cofga
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Cofga said:

 

That looks a lot better and closer to the prototype photo above. Is there a large open space in the tender as in the GWR Mogul for placing a speaker? I used a Zimo Dumbo in mine and it sounds great and hope to do the same with the Wainwright. If I knew there would be room I would go ahead and order the speaker right now—it will be 2-3 weeks before the big green box appears in my mailbox over here.

Yes, it has the same sized speaker well as the mogul, approx. 20mm by 40mm. I have just squashed a Zimo Dumbo into mine. I had to file it down a bit to get it in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...